You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.

In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.

If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this!

That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.

In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.

If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this!

For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.

Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level._________________With much cheese,
Nacho Simulation Football League

That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.

In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.

If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this!

For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.

Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level.

It belittles the statistic to include these types of 'play-enders.'

This wasn't football, this was JJ Watt having to touch a player 'down' because Ryan Tannehill did the smart thing and simply covered up when he knew the play had blown up.

Oh, cry me a river, JJ Watt is so ripped off here!

If you get credit for stuff like that, fine, live with it, but don't be up in arms when your favorite player--or any player--doesn't get credit because he had to make physical contact with a guy who was given up. Ryan Tannehill would've stayed down long enough for JJ Watt to circle the stadium twice and come back onto the field.

This was no exceptional effort so there's nothing to defend. If you don't think it's fair then I suggest to question why we use statistics in the 1st place. What good is a sack record at all if it includes bogus stuff.

Hmm... not sure about this one. I don't know if they really should have changed it from what it was. If it was their intention to run, their intention failed before the tackle, and after the handoff fails I don't see how you can classify it as a run, as Tannenhill may well have thrown it away. I think they should have let this one stand.

That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.

In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.

If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this!

For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.

Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level.

It belittles the statistic to include these types of 'play-enders.'

This wasn't football, this was JJ Watt having to touch a player 'down' because Ryan Tannehill did the smart thing and simply covered up when he knew the play had blown up.

Oh, cry me a river, JJ Watt is so ripped off here!

If you get credit for stuff like that, fine, live with it, but don't be up in arms when your favorite player--or any player--doesn't get credit because he had to make physical contact with a guy who was given up. Ryan Tannehill would've stayed down long enough for JJ Watt to circle the stadium twice and come back onto the field.

This was no exceptional effort so there's nothing to defend. If you don't think it's fair then I suggest to question why we use statistics in the 1st place. What good is a sack record at all if it includes bogus stuff.

...yeah, yeah, yeah...someone show the Strahan-Favre clip.

Lol @ the assumptions made in this post.

I don't give two [inappropriate/removed] about JJ Watt, I'm a Dolphins fan. But making a stat based on intent is silly. BTW, watch the play. JJ Watt completely shut down that play and tackled the QB. It was a sack in my eyes._________________With much cheese,
Nacho Simulation Football League

That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.

In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.

If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this!

For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.

Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level.

It belittles the statistic to include these types of 'play-enders.'

This wasn't football, this was JJ Watt having to touch a player 'down' because Ryan Tannehill did the smart thing and simply covered up when he knew the play had blown up.

Oh, cry me a river, JJ Watt is so ripped off here!

If you get credit for stuff like that, fine, live with it, but don't be up in arms when your favorite player--or any player--doesn't get credit because he had to make physical contact with a guy who was given up. Ryan Tannehill would've stayed down long enough for JJ Watt to circle the stadium twice and come back onto the field.

This was no exceptional effort so there's nothing to defend. If you don't think it's fair then I suggest to question why we use statistics in the 1st place. What good is a sack record at all if it includes bogus stuff.

...yeah, yeah, yeah...someone show the Strahan-Favre clip.

why are you so angry? _________________life is one huge game that infinite awareness has with itself

Tackle for loss is just as good as a sack, people get waaaaaaay too caught up in sack numbers

When is the last time you saw a 7 yard TFL?

Sacks have a much higher average loss._________________All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost

Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

Hmm... not sure about this one. I don't know if they really should have changed it from what it was. If it was their intention to run, their intention failed before the tackle, and after the handoff fails I don't see how you can classify it as a run, as Tannenhill may well have thrown it away. I think they should have let this one stand.

If he had, it would have been a penalty for illegal lineman downfield._________________If you're not in over your head, how do you know how tall you are?